Brand new, NTC-approved, inexpensive handheld radios!

[wuzafuzz]

It would be truly unfortunate if they pull KG-UV6D authorization due to receiver specs.  I use one routinely and have never experienced objectionable interference that wasn't also a problem on compliant Motorola and EFJ radios. 

As long as I'm not transmitting where I shouldn't it would be swell if the regulators would chill out. Members don't have a bottomless pit of other people's money to spend on radios.

[Brad]

It would be truly unfortunate if they pull KG-UV6D authorization due to receiver specs.  I use one routinely and have never experienced objectionable interference that wasn't also a problem on compliant Motorola and EFJ radios. 

As long as I'm not transmitting where I shouldn't it would be swell if the regulators would chill out. Members don't have a bottomless pit of other people's money to spend on radios.

Eric did you happen to see the email exchange on cap-comm about the debate for compliance requirements on the RX side? It's....interesting...to say the least.

[JoeTomasone]

It would be truly unfortunate if they pull KG-UV6X authorization due to receiver specs.

FTFY. 


A unit a few percentage points off in the RX side shouldn't be cause for NTC to reject a member-owned radio, IMHO.  It's the owner's problem and doesn't affect anyone else.

However, that being said, I can make a great case as to how current regulations permit us to use any NB-capable radio anyway, except in cases of interference.   No one at higher HQ seems to be interested in my barracks lawyer skills, however.

[brent.teal]

Anything yall can share from that email exchange?

[Brad]

Anything yall can share from that email exchange?

I'll have to find it and look through it.

Edit: found it, nothing appears FOUO / Comms only, what's your email?

[brent.teal]

pm sent

[Panache]

Anybody know if this unit works with P25?

[arajca]

It does not.

[Panache]

Well, darn.  But I guess that's what to be expected with an inexpensive radio like that.

[a2capt]

Kinda curious myself..

[wuzafuzz]

It would be truly unfortunate if they pull KG-UV6X authorization due to receiver specs.

FTFY. 


A unit a few percentage points off in the RX side shouldn't be cause for NTC to reject a member-owned radio, IMHO.  It's the owner's problem and doesn't affect anyone else.

However, that being said, I can make a great case as to how current regulations permit us to use any NB-capable radio anyway, except in cases of interference.   No one at higher HQ seems to be interested in my barracks lawyer skills, however.

Oops, good catch on the model number.

[wuzafuzz]

It would be truly unfortunate if they pull KG-UV6D authorization due to receiver specs.  I use one routinely and have never experienced objectionable interference that wasn't also a problem on compliant Motorola and EFJ radios. 

As long as I'm not transmitting where I shouldn't it would be swell if the regulators would chill out. Members don't have a bottomless pit of other people's money to spend on radios.

Eric did you happen to see the email exchange on cap-comm about the debate for compliance requirements on the RX side? It's....interesting...to say the least.

I sure did.  It was an interesting discussion. 

[brent.teal]

We've got two operators using it in our squadron and a third on the way.  Including me.

[Larry Mangum]

There has been a lot of debate on these radios, but the gist is that a very knowledgeable CAP COMM guy, decided to perform a check to see if the radio actually meet spec's. He decided it did not. Now while I have a very high opinion of this individual, having been involved in the business of providing communication equipment to the military and knowing the type of equipment and RF isolation tanks it takes to do an accurate test, I question the results.  CAP COMM, has also decided that it cannot afford to spend the money to have the radio tested by a lab. So unless they are willing to spend the money and are willing to do the same for all the radios's they have approved based upon manufacturers supplied certifications, they really need to allow the radio. Or for that matter disapprove it and be done with it.

To do any less is performing a disservice to the members.

[a2capt]

Sounds like sour grapes in that a radio priced to be attainable by many could mean someone can no longer push their weight around, or perhaps it causes more work for someone, so lets put a stop to it.

Yes, it is what it is. How many units did they test, what are the conditions, are all radios tested the same way, and the manufactures word taken for each one?

It's all about consistency. Test everything the same way. The whole way.

[ReCAP]

Sounds like sour grapes in that a radio priced to be attainable by many could mean someone can no longer push their weight around, or perhaps it causes more work for someone, so lets put a stop to it.

Oh, they won't stop there.  My repeated requests for the FOUO frequency info have been ignored by the DC.  The CAPR says if I have a legitimate need to know they should give it to me.  I'm a squadron comm officer and I have a radio to program, don't I need to know?  Or should I just resort to relying on what I find on the internet? 

[a2capt]

Thank goodness we don't seem to have that much of a problem here.

* a2capt says as he looks at the binder sitting on the desk.

More progress blocking, job-security guarantee type mentality. "If they have to use my radios, and only I can program them, then they -need- me."

So much for moving the mission forward.

[arajca]

Sounds like sour grapes in that a radio priced to be attainable by many could mean someone can no longer push their weight around, or perhaps it causes more work for someone, so lets put a stop to it.

Oh, they won't stop there.  My repeated requests for the FOUO frequency info have been ignored by the DC.  The CAPR says if I have a legitimate need to know they should give it to me.  I'm a squadron comm officer and I have a radio to program, don't I need to know?  Or should I just resort to relying on what I find on the internet?

Do you have the software and cables or are you going to have some else program it? There is a difference.

[ReCAP]

I was going to program it myself - it's easy enough.  I'm aware of what the reg says about disclosing the info to a third party and wasn't asking fo that. 

He did eventually say that I should bring the radio the wing HQ (4 hour round trip) and they would "assist" me with the programming.  Considering they didn't know this radio existed until I told them, I fail to see what assistance they will be able to offer.  At that point I pretty much gave up for now.  Do they think they are going to somehow secretly put the frequencies into my radio and I won't be able to read the info back out of it the moment they hand it back to me? 

The regs are clear, you don't need to know the freqs to operate a radio, but you should be given them if you have a *reasonable* need to know.  I'm very reasonable. 

[Eclipse]

The radio needs to be certified licensed for use on CAP frequencies.

Programming the channels isn't enough, so whether you have that info or not, it's going to have to be blessed
by a Wing Licensing officer at some point, regardless.